6 ms·

All speech must be legal short of threats,fraud, etc. If one administration is given the power to outlaw speech you don't like, you may not like it when the nex

All speech must be legal short of threats,fraud, etc. If one administration is given the power to outlaw speech you don't like, you may not like it when the next administration you didn't vote for does the same. Everyone should have the right to say what they want free of government repercussions. I would even go so far as to say what someone says and does on their free time is their business and not their employers as long as they are not representing themselves as speaking for the employer. Non violent Nazi on your free time, cool that's your business as long as you don't discuss it in any way shape or form at work and you treat all of your coworkers equally and with respect. Obviously if someone is committing felonies in support of their beliefs that's something else.

akerl_ 4y ago
Employers (unless you work for the government) are not bound by the first amendment, and can fire you or penalize you for expression outside of the workplace.
- ohCh6zos 4y ago
  It seems like that is an oversight we should fix.
  - krapp 4y ago
    It's not an oversight, it's the inevitable and intended consequence of freedom of speech, freedom of association and private property as defined by the US Constitution and law. "fixing" that would mean undermining those fundamental rights in favor of a right that doesn't exist in the US, the right to employment.
    - ohCh6zos 4y ago
      We should have all of those, but right now we have those asymmetrically depending on your cause.
      - michaelmrose 4y ago
        If I believe that people whose name is ohCh6zos should be made into bacon ought the law force you to employ me or do you think adults should be able to choose who they associate with?
        ohCh6zos 4y ago
        I believe that the existence of protected classes means you do not enjoy the freedom of association you rightfully should, and that either extreme would be preferable to the middle ground where only some expression overrides freedom of association.
        michaelmrose 4y ago
        You have freedom to associate with whom you choose based on any reasonable criteria other than not hiring someone because of the color of their skin, where they come from, or whom they choose to love. The freedom of a tiny minority of employers cannot be extended further without abridging the freedom of the vast majority of folks. You have argued both for forcing people to associate with those whose views they find deplorable and for privileging the right of employers not to associate with protected classes. Which is it? The only possible interpretation is that you are either vacillating between mutually incoherent positions arguing first one than the other with no attempt to reconcile them or you would like the government to privilege one group of people by allowing them to discriminate while forcing people to accept their "free expression" however odious it is.
        wonderwonder 4y ago
        Except you can hire based on the color of the applicants skin. You can openly favor black people over white and Asian applicants. Lots of companies do it. OP is simply stating he is against all favored status, hiring should be a meritocracy.
        michaelmrose 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  Right, I realize that, that's why I said we should go further. All of the amendments are about individuals relationship with the government.
michaelmrose 4y ago
This isn't even true now. There are all sorts of limits including but not limited to gag orders, no contact orders, defamation, harassment, malicious use of a telephone device, obscene phone calls and so forth. You imply that it is utterly impossible to draft a law forbidding some speech without handing the tools of oppression to the next fellow to hold office but we already deal with plenty of nuanced situations now many odious examples of speech that aren't nuanced at all. Calls for stochastic violence or terrorism are just as worrying as specific threats even when the target is not specifically called out. Someone should murder all the jews is no more acceptable than lets get together at the bar next Tuesday and kill Bob the Jew with the candlestick. Hand in glove with the above is false information designed to spread hate. Ex The jews are setting our forests ablaze with jewish space lasers! Do you know who snuck in and stole my breakfast? Jews! Why am I going bald? Jewish space lasers pointed at my head! If you constantly spew hateful nonsense while others directly call for violence its pretty clearly part of the same shtick and you ought to be treated similarly. This is trivially defined as clearly false information about a group of people defined by cultural, ethnic, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation yada yada yada designed to promote hatred towards a group of people. You may trivially point out that grey areas exist. This is hardly a barrier to dealing with the numerous black and white scenarios so evident around us. Lastly I don't want to employ or work with a "non violent nazi" just because he promotes mass murder only on his own time because such a person is an odious human being and regarding minorities as subhuman is inherently going to color his decision making even if he presents as objective. I really don't think I or any manager ought to be obliged to overlook the fact that applicant has already publicly announced that he is an odious human being. Even were he to fully separate his odious being from the job he does his coworkers will inevitably come to understand who he is if he keeps putting it out there online under his own name and you'll find yourself at a disadvantage in terms of retaining good help and clients if everyone knows you employ nazis. Free speech absolutism is an indefensible position. It is so far as I'm aware practiced nowhere in the world.
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  I'm not a free speech absolutist and think current laws do a pretty good job of dealing with things like fraud, threats, etc. I don't think that openly disliking a group of people should be illegal though. I don't think we should hate others but of more importance to me is that I don't want to give the government more power to police speech and thought. In my mind that's far more dangerous. If someone thinks Jewish space lasers are to blame for the weather, or whatever it's pretty dumb, but shouldn't be illegal. Only when it rises to the point of "we should do something about the Jewish problem" and plans are taking place should it be illegal. The police / FBI are pretty good at determining which is which and acting on it. Exceptions apply. Giving the government more power is a slippery slope. Is Christianity arguing against homosexuality hate speech? Should we round up all of the pastors and priests? Should we demand people provide the government with a list of their personal beliefs and send those that are on the fringe to reeducation camps? Should there be a government mandated listening device in every home? Bad people and those we disagree with will always exist I'm totally good with that. I'm not good with thought police.

akerl_ 4y ago

Employers (unless you work for the government) are not bound by the first amendment, and can fire you or penalize you for expression outside of the workplace.

ohCh6zos 4y ago
It seems like that is an oversight we should fix.
- krapp 4y ago
  It's not an oversight, it's the inevitable and intended consequence of freedom of speech, freedom of association and private property as defined by the US Constitution and law. "fixing" that would mean undermining those fundamental rights in favor of a right that doesn't exist in the US, the right to employment.
  - ohCh6zos 4y ago
    We should have all of those, but right now we have those asymmetrically depending on your cause.
    - michaelmrose 4y ago
      If I believe that people whose name is ohCh6zos should be made into bacon ought the law force you to employ me or do you think adults should be able to choose who they associate with?
      - ohCh6zos 4y ago
        I believe that the existence of protected classes means you do not enjoy the freedom of association you rightfully should, and that either extreme would be preferable to the middle ground where only some expression overrides freedom of association.
        michaelmrose 4y ago
        You have freedom to associate with whom you choose based on any reasonable criteria other than not hiring someone because of the color of their skin, where they come from, or whom they choose to love. The freedom of a tiny minority of employers cannot be extended further without abridging the freedom of the vast majority of folks. You have argued both for forcing people to associate with those whose views they find deplorable and for privileging the right of employers not to associate with protected classes. Which is it? The only possible interpretation is that you are either vacillating between mutually incoherent positions arguing first one than the other with no attempt to reconcile them or you would like the government to privilege one group of people by allowing them to discriminate while forcing people to accept their "free expression" however odious it is.
        wonderwonder 4y ago
        Except you can hire based on the color of the applicants skin. You can openly favor black people over white and Asian applicants. Lots of companies do it. OP is simply stating he is against all favored status, hiring should be a meritocracy.
        michaelmrose 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
wonderwonder 4y ago
Right, I realize that, that's why I said we should go further. All of the amendments are about individuals relationship with the government.

michaelmrose 4y ago

This isn't even true now. There are all sorts of limits including but not limited to gag orders, no contact orders, defamation, harassment, malicious use of a telephone device, obscene phone calls and so forth. You imply that it is utterly impossible to draft a law forbidding some speech without handing the tools of oppression to the next fellow to hold office but we already deal with plenty of nuanced situations now many odious examples of speech that aren't nuanced at all. Calls for stochastic violence or terrorism are just as worrying as specific threats even when the target is not specifically called out. Someone should murder all the jews is no more acceptable than lets get together at the bar next Tuesday and kill Bob the Jew with the candlestick. Hand in glove with the above is false information designed to spread hate. Ex The jews are setting our forests ablaze with jewish space lasers! Do you know who snuck in and stole my breakfast? Jews! Why am I going bald? Jewish space lasers pointed at my head! If you constantly spew hateful nonsense while others directly call for violence its pretty clearly part of the same shtick and you ought to be treated similarly. This is trivially defined as clearly false information about a group of people defined by cultural, ethnic, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation yada yada yada designed to promote hatred towards a group of people. You may trivially point out that grey areas exist. This is hardly a barrier to dealing with the numerous black and white scenarios so evident around us. Lastly I don't want to employ or work with a "non violent nazi" just because he promotes mass murder only on his own time because such a person is an odious human being and regarding minorities as subhuman is inherently going to color his decision making even if he presents as objective. I really don't think I or any manager ought to be obliged to overlook the fact that applicant has already publicly announced that he is an odious human being. Even were he to fully separate his odious being from the job he does his coworkers will inevitably come to understand who he is if he keeps putting it out there online under his own name and you'll find yourself at a disadvantage in terms of retaining good help and clients if everyone knows you employ nazis. Free speech absolutism is an indefensible position. It is so far as I'm aware practiced nowhere in the world.

wonderwonder 4y ago
I'm not a free speech absolutist and think current laws do a pretty good job of dealing with things like fraud, threats, etc. I don't think that openly disliking a group of people should be illegal though. I don't think we should hate others but of more importance to me is that I don't want to give the government more power to police speech and thought. In my mind that's far more dangerous. If someone thinks Jewish space lasers are to blame for the weather, or whatever it's pretty dumb, but shouldn't be illegal. Only when it rises to the point of "we should do something about the Jewish problem" and plans are taking place should it be illegal. The police / FBI are pretty good at determining which is which and acting on it. Exceptions apply. Giving the government more power is a slippery slope. Is Christianity arguing against homosexuality hate speech? Should we round up all of the pastors and priests? Should we demand people provide the government with a list of their personal beliefs and send those that are on the fringe to reeducation camps? Should there be a government mandated listening device in every home? Bad people and those we disagree with will always exist I'm totally good with that. I'm not good with thought police.